Powell v. Koon

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 02/03/2017. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA FEB - 3 2017 CLERK, U.S. DiSTRICT COURT Richmond Division RICHMOND. VA KENT A. POWELL, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:16CV566-HEH V. MRS. KOON, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In order to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a person acting under color of state law deprived him or her of a constitutional right or of a right conferred by a law of the United States. See Dowe v. Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, 145 F.3d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Plaintiffs current allegations fail to provide Defendant with fair notice of the facts and legal basis upon which her potential liability rests. See Bell Atl Corp. V. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Accordingly, by Memorandum Order entered on January 11, 2017, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof The Court warned Plaintiff that the failure to submit the particularized complaint would result in the dismissal of the action. More than fourteen (14) days have elapsed since the entry of the January 11, 2017, Memorandum Order. Plaintiff failed to submit a particularized complaint or otherwise respond to the January 11, 2017, Memorandum Order. Accordingly, the action will be dismissed withoutprejudice. Plaintiff is free to file a new action that amplifies the factual and legal basis upon which his claims rest. An appropriate order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. /s/ HENRY E. HUDSON Date: 3 2^/0 Richmond, X^irginia UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?